skip to main content
10.1145/3603287.3651211acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesacm-seConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper
Free Access

Test Case Expression in a Low-Code Development Platform

Published:27 April 2024Publication History

ABSTRACT

Low-code development is an emerging paradigm that allows end-users to develop software that meets their needs without in-depth knowledge of traditional programming languages (e.g., Java, C++, Python). As a new technology that has existed for less than a decade, low-code development is providing new opportunities in industry. However, aside from the functionality offered in low-code development platforms (LCDPs), little attention has been paid to the role of low-code testing support. LCDPs need more capabilities to support testing because the difficulties in creating low-code test cases include: end-user understanding, interaction between modules and workflows, the ability to find bugs or errors, and quality assurance from a higher-level view of the product. This paper considers Bubble.io, a low-code platform, as an example context to explain the difficulties of existing low-code platforms in testing and identifying errors. We describe the design of a test expression language to help end-users better understand the errors in their product such that they can make targeted changes.

References

  1. Gediminas Adomavicius and Alexander Tuzhilin. 2001. Expert-driven Validation of Rule-based User Models in Personalization Applications. Data Mining and Knowledge Discovery 5 (2001), 33--58.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Bohner. 1996. Impact Analysis in the Software Change Process: A Year 2000 Perspective. In 1996 Proceedings of International Conference on Software Maintenance. IEEE, Monterey, CA, 42--51.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bubble.io. 2023. Working With Location Data. https://manual.bubble.io/help-guides/data/the-database/working-with-location-data.htmlGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Hamza Ed-Douibi, Javier Luis Cánovas Izquierdo, and Jordi Cabot. 2018. Automatic Generation of Test Cases for REST APIs: A Specification-based Approach. In 2018 IEEE 22nd International Enterprise Distributed Object Computing Conference (EDOC). IEEE, Stockholm, Sweden, 181--190.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Roy S Freedman. 1991. Testability of Software Components. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 17, 6 (1991), 553--564.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Sukhpal Singh Gill, Minxian Xu, Carlo Ottaviani, Panos Patros, Rami Bahsoon, Arash Shaghaghi, Muhammed Golec, Vlado Stankovski, Huaming Wu, and Ajith Abraham. 2022. AI for Next Generation Computing: Emerging Trends and Future Directions. Internet of Things 19 (2022), 100514.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Martin Hirzel. 2023. Low-code Programming Models. Commun. ACM 66, 10 (2023), 76--85.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Katharina Juhnke, Matthias Tichy, and Frank Houdek. 2021. Challenges Concerning Test Case Specifications in Automotive Software Testing: Assessment of Frequency and Criticality. Software Quality Journal 29 (2021), 39--100.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Caitlin Kelleher and Randy Pausch. 2005. Lowering the Barriers to Programming: A Taxonomy of Programming Environments and Languages for Novice Programmers. ACM Comput. Surv. 37, 2 (jun 2005), 83--137. https://doi.org/10.1145/1089733.1089734Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Henry Lieberman, Fabio Paternò, Markus Klann, and Volker Wulf. 2006. End-user Development: An Emerging Paradigm. In End User Development. Springer, 1--8.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Fabio Paternò and Carmen Santoro. 2019. End-user Development for Personalizing Applications, Things, and Robots. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 131 (2019), 120--130.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Clay Richardson and John R Rymer. 2016. Vendor Landscape: The Fractured, Fertile Terrain of Low-code Application Platforms. Forrester, Janeiro (2016), 12.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Per Rovegård, Lefteris Angelis, and Claes Wohlin. 2008. An Empirical Study on Views of Importance of Change Impact Analysis Issues. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering 34, 4 (2008), 516--530.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Leif Sundberg and Jonny Holmström. 2023. Democratizing Artificial Intelligence: How No-code AI Can Leverage Machine Learning Operations. Business Horizons (2023).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Test Case Expression in a Low-Code Development Platform

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      ACM SE '24: Proceedings of the 2024 ACM Southeast Conference
      April 2024
      337 pages
      ISBN:9798400702372
      DOI:10.1145/3603287

      Copyright © 2024 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 27 April 2024

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper
      • Research
      • Refereed limited

      Acceptance Rates

      ACM SE '24 Paper Acceptance Rate44of137submissions,32%Overall Acceptance Rate178of377submissions,47%
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)20
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)20

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader